Posts Tagged ‘aging’

When Cassandra warned the Trojans about a peculiar looking horse, she was ignored. In a somewhat similar vein, the Insider has predicted potentially dire consequences of an aging workforce: unable to retire, some older workers labor to the breaking point and then might hope to parlay workers comp into the retirement plan of last resort. So far it has not turned out that way. But a new study by Sage Journals confirms some of our concerns about risks among older workers and possibly even explains why fatally injured older workers might not show up on comp radar.
The Sage researchers set out to examine the relationship between fatal falls and age. They focused on the construction industry, which comprises only 8 percent of the American workforce, but generates 50 percent of all fatal falls. The frequency of falls among younger workers (here defined as under 55) was higher, but older workers who fell were more likely to die. (Kudos to Sage for defining older workers as 55+ – as opposed to the fairly meaningless federal standard of 40+.) The greatest risks for fatal falls occurred, not surprisingly, among roofers, iron workers and power line installers. Among roofers, older workers had a fall rate of 60.5 fatalities per 100,000 workers, compared to 23.2 fatalities among younger workers. Older workers were more likely to fall from ladders. In addition, their fatal falls could occur at substantially lower heights than the fatal falls of younger workers.Where’s Comp?
As we continue to zero in on the problem, the workers comp dimension comes into focus. Fatal falls among older workers were more likely to occur in residential settings – worksites less likely to be overseen by OSHA or state authorities. And fatal falls were more likely to occur among small contractors, many of whom were sole proprietors. The study points out that nearly 40 percent of construction workers 55+ are self employed.
Therein may lie one of the clues to the mystery as to why workers comp costs among older workers have not risen at the rate we once anticipated. Among fatalities, a substantial portion of the workers were independent contractors and thus did not carry workers comp coverage; many states preclude coverage for sole proprietors. Even in states where independent contractors are allowed to enroll in comp, most did not bother, as the cost, often based upon the state’s average industrial wage, is well beyond the means of a part-time, self-employed craftsman.

Case in point: In Massachusetts, a relatively low cost state for comp, the rate for roofers is $26.10 per $100 of payroll; the state average industrial wage is $42,700. A sole proprietor roofer would have to pay over $11,000 to secure the protection of a comp policy, even if his annual billings were less than the average industrial wage.

The Sage study points to a number of factors in the severity of falls among older workers. Over time, we all succumb to the biomechanics of aging: slower reaction times, decreased joint mobility, reduced elasticity of tissues and loss of strength. Based upon my own experience, mix in a little forgetfulness, an occasional lack of coordination, and you have a potentially toxic mix, especially in the context of heights and ladders.Unbroken Falls
The aging workforce is not about to go away. The Sage researchers point out that older workers – again, 55+ – totalled 17 million in 1998, reached 27.9 million in 2008 and are projected to reach 40 million by 2018. The median age in construction has gone from 34 in 1985 to 41+ in 2009; in the same period, workers 45 to 64 went from 25 percent to 34 percent of the workforce.
Given the absence of strong safety oversight in residential construction, the inevitable aging of the workers who perform residential work and the common use of ladders, we can expect the trend of fatalities among older construction workers to continue. The impact on workers comp is another matter altogether. It appears that many of the aging craftsmen working on our homes are independent contractors. When they fall, there is little or no safety net between them and the cold, hard ground.
Thanks to Julie Ferguson for the heads up on this research.

We have often discussed the disconnect between the roughly 100 year old workers comp system and the realities of today’s workforce. The old system was not designed to handle older – and we do mean older – workers. Today’s case in point is Von Brock, a 77 year old greeter for Walmart in Mississippi. In July 2008 Brock was moving a lawn mower for a customer when the handle fell off, causing him to fall and break his leg. After surgery, one leg was shorter than the other. Brock was assigned a 20 percent disability rating and never returned to work.
Given his permanent total disability, Brock was awarded benefits of $163.67 per week for 450 weeks. He requested and was granted a lump sum settlement which totalled about $75,000, minus what had already been paid, for a revised total of $53,000. Using actuarial tables for life expectancy, the workers comp commission further reduced the lump sum to $32,000 – a discount of 42 percent, compared to the usual 4 percent discount for younger workers. Brock sued, stating that he had already exceeded average life expectancy for white males and was in good health. He alleged that the use of actuarial charts was discriminatory.
The Mississippi court of appeals rejected Brock’s claim, citing Mississippi Code Annotated section 71-3-37(10):

Whenever the [C]ommission determines that it is for the best interests of a person entitled to compensation, the liability of the employer for compensation, or any part thereof as determined by the [C]ommission, may be discharged by the payment of a lump sum equal to the present value of future compensation payments commuted, computed at four percent (4%) true discount compounded annually. The probability of the death of the injured employee or other person entitled to compensation shall be determined in accordance with validated actuarial tables or factors as the [C]ommission finds equitable and consistent with the purposes of the Workers’Compensation Law.[emphasis added in appeals court decision]

The appeals court noted that the language of the law is unambiguous: the commission “shall apply validated actuarial tables…” Hence, despite Brock’s apparent good health and his already beating the prevailing odds on mortality, the lump sum was discounted substantially because of his age.New Realities of the Working World
The Mississippi statute, like those of other states, does not contemplate the dilemma of a 79 year old disabled worker. Nor do these various statutes take into account the precarious state of the rapidly aging American workforce, where post-employment prospects are exceedingly dim. Retirement is hardly an option for people who lack the substantial resources necessary for retirement. Von Brock continued working because he needed the money; once disabled, he needed workers comp to fill in the gap. Unfortunately, the “mortal coil” of age finally caught up with him: his working days are over.
Even if Brock had prevailed, the nest egg represented by the maximum lump sum settlement would only have covered his expenses for a few years; as it is, he now walks away with a substantially lower amount. While his former employer Walmart continues to offer discounts to bring in the customers, workers comp offers a discount that substantially reduces his ability to survive. Mr. Brock is in the vanguard of a multitude of aging workers in a dire situation. We wish them all the best of luck.

As the New Year looms, the 100 year old workers compensation system continues its awkward foray into the 21st century, it encounters problems beyond its original design: the widespread availability of opioids, increasing sophistication in medical interventions, and an aging workforce. Today we examine a formerly inconceivable conundrum: can an 80 year old man be expected to return to work after an injury?
Kenneth Brunner graduated high school in 1949 and worked steadily all his life: From 1951 through 1993 he ran the family dairy farm with help from his wife, an accountant. Brunner raised crops; used a tractor, plow and other farm machines, kept track of feed and each animal’s output. He took milk samples from each cow and sent them for analysis; after receiving reports, he adjusted feed for each animal to maximize output. He supervised two to three individuals on the farm.
From 1954 through 1984 he supplemented his farm income by driving a school bus – work which, in the view of the Ohio workers comp commission, required the ability to work independently and use judgment.
From 1968 through 2000 Brunner also was employed as an insurance adjuster. He estimated crop loss for an insurance company, a job that required using scales, taking samples and writing reports. In 1990, at age 58, he was certified for insurance sales.
In January 2011, at age 77, he was working in a maintenance job, when he tripped on a drain pipe and fell face first onto pavement. His injuries were severe:bilateral frontal bone fracture; fracture lateral wall right maxilla; fracture bilateral paranasal sinuses; closed fracture bilateral nasal bone; open wound of forehead; abrasion face; closed fracture C2 vertebra.
He received workers comp benefits. A couple of years into his recovery, he filed for permanent total benefits (PTD). Brunner was 80 years out and had had enough of working.
Brunner’s treating doctor concluded that he would never work again:

This claimant has an injury that is permanent and for which there is no curative therapy. This claimant has progressively suffered loss of function and has had to endure progressively more pain. The exam above shows that there is so little functional capacity and that the claimant is so affected by his condition and its required care, that there is no capacity for sustained remunerative employment and that there is no reasonable employer that would ever hire the claimant expecting any work capacity.
Based on the examination above, review of documents, and based on sound medical reasoning I find that the allowed physical conditions, independently and by themselves, render the claimant permanently and totally disabled and unfit for all sustained remunerative employment.

Once a Worker, Always a Worker?
The Ohio workers comp commission reviewed Brunner’s claim for PTD benefits. They took into account his age, as well as his resume in determining that he was still capable of working. While most of his living involved physical labor, throughout his working life Brunner had displayed skills that at least theoretically were transferable to sedentary work. As a result, they rejected Brunner’s request for PTD benefits. The commission did not address the likelihood of anyone offering Brunner a sedentary job.An appeals court upheld the denial of the claim, finding that the commission did not abuse its discretion: (1) in weighing Brunner’s age in assessing the non-medical factors; and (2) in determining that Brunner has some transferable skills.
It appears that Brunner’s longevity worked against him. He labored well into his 70s and displayed unusual fortitude in recovery from serious injuries. Because the premise of PTD payments is protection for disabled workers who are available for work but no longer able to do it, Brunner finds himself ineligible for benefits. In a supreme irony, his ability to work as an older worker precluded the conclusion that he was unable – even at 80 – to continue working.
Brunner’s dilemma is by no means unique. As the workforce ages, as more and more workers continue labor late into their seventies and even 80s, a paradox emerges: the point where one is too old to work recedes into the haze of the future, leaving injured older workers in a gray zone where their permanent injuries may or may not be compensable and where their (theoretical) ability to work mitigates against their being paid not to work.
In the months and years ahead we will see more and more litigation involving the claims of “older” workers with ages far beyond what was contemplated in the original workers comp system. State by state, the system will have to respond, becoming the focal point of economic, social and even psychological forces that are far larger than workers, comp stakeholders and state policy makers combined. This is an evolving narrative of surpassing interest. Stay tuned.

When a laborer with limited English is disabled from physical work, is he obligated to increase his employability by learning English? This interesting question emerged in the case of Enrique Gutierrez, a 48 year old welder who worked at Merivic, a company specializing in grain-related processing. Gutierrez came to the United States at age 14, but in his 34 years in the country never learned to speak or write English. While at work, Gutierrez fell about 10 feet onto a steel table, injuring his shoulder and wrist. He underwent two surgeries, worked for a while as a one-armed welder, and then was let go. His post-injury functioning was significantly limited, including difficulty lifting and carrying, gripping and grasping, and reaching.
When the workers comp commission found him permanently and totally disabled, the employer appealed and the case reached the Iowa Court of Appeals, where the finding of compensability was upheld. Up until 2007, Iowa courts routinely lowered the indemnity paid to limited English speaking workers, on the theory that a language disability was something within the power of the worker to correct. A case entitled Lovic v. Construction put an end to that practice. The reasoning in this decision is worth quoting:

Unfortunately, this line of cases [involving reduced indemnity]
overlooked the fact that the employers who hired these workers should
have reasonably anticipated that an injury which limits an ability to return
to manual labor work would have far more devastating consequences
upon non-English speaking workers than English speaking workers.
Oftentimes, this agency has penalized non-English speaking workers
despite the knowledge that the employers actually recruited such workers
because they were willing to work for less wages.

In other words, you get what you pay for: limited English speaking workers are willing to work for less, so the employer benefits from this potential “disability.” The ruling goes on to attack the rationale for the reduced wages:

What has been troublesome to many, including myself, is that this
agency has never similarly treated non-immigrant workers for failing to
learn other skills. Defendants would certainly have trouble citing any
agency or court precedent in the workers’ compensation arena where an
industrial award for an English speaking worker was lowered because the
injured worker, before the injury, failed to anticipate he would suffer a
devastating work injury and failed to obtain a type of education before the
injury that would mitigate the effects of such an injury.
We simply cannot assume that claimant was capable of such training or that such classes are generally successful in leading to employment where fluent English is required . . . .

By reiterating the logic of the pre-Lovic court, Merivic was attacking settled – albeit recently settled – law. The Appeals Court rejected this “collateral attack” on Lovic and upheld the permanent total award, and in doing stumbled upon yet another conundrum: that of the older worker. The court found that once a laborer goes beyond age 47, his ability to perform physically demanding work comes into question. A vocational expert retained by Gutierrez described the 48 year old worker as “approaching advanced age.” The Judge noted that “We have previously held the age of forty-seven is a factor that the commissioner may consider in finding industrial disability.” The expert also noted that Gutierrez’s entire career involved “limited education” and a work history limited to physically demanding jobs, which his permanent work restrictions now prevented him from performing.The Very Big Picture
Our Colleague Peter Rousmaniere provides a valuable perspective on aging manual workers. In his Risk & Insurance article “The Age Trap” he points out that 55+ workers comprised 16.7 percent of the workforce in 2010, a number projected to increase to 22.7 percent by 2020. In contrast to Enrique Gutierrez, most aging workers are not injured and eligible for workers comp; to be sure, their bodies are wearing down and they are confronted with diminishing strength and balance, even as they desperately try to hold onto their places in the workforce. Rousmaniere suggests that employers develop a renewed focus on prevention, one that has been adapted to the realities of the aging worker. After all, these workers are valued for the skill and experience they bring to the work, even as their work capacities diminish.
The Big picture here – and it is a very big picture indeed – is the dilemma of aging workers who perform physically demanding jobs and who have little education and virtually no transferable skills. There are millions of such workers, some are immigrants, while many others are native born. Most have zero prospects for a secure retirement, even as Congress contemplates pushing social security retirement even further into the future.
Whether they like their jobs or not, aging workers see themselves working out of necessity well into the their 60s, 70s and even 80s. As their bodies inevitably wear out, as their injuries (cumulative and sudden) lead a number of them into workers comp courts across the country, judges will be confronted with the same dilemma that faced the appeals court in Iowa: for older workers with no transferable skills, workers comp becomes the retirement plan of choice for those with no retirement plans and no way to continue working.

Health Wonk Review – Jason Shafrin has posted the Health Wonk Review: More than Birth Control Pills edition at Healthcare Economist. And there is indeed much more than birth control in this issue: politics, health care reform, the Affordable Care Act, and a grab bag of other timely topics. Check it out!CDC calls prescription drug problem “epidemic” – The CDC weighs in on the prescription drug abuse problem, calling it “epidemic” and “the fastest growing drug problem in the United States.” Risk & Insurance offers a concise summary. And on the same theme is a story about how New Jersey has implemented a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. “In unveiling the program last month, state officials related that one patient obtained more than 2,500 doses of oxycodone and methadone in a four-week period. The patient presented what are now believed to be forged prescriptions to three pharmacies on 14 separate occasions, spread out his visits among the pharmacies, and paid sometimes with cash and sometimes by insurance.”Affordable Care Act: What if… – What if the Supreme Court overturns the mandate? At Managed Care Matters, Joe Paduda looks at what the repeal of the mandate would mean for workers comp.Marijuana & impairment Roberto Ceniceros recently discussed the issue of marijuana use and impairment. He cites a recent Louisiana appeals-court ruling that upheld benefits for an injured worker who showed positive in a post-injury test for consumption of marijuana and a prescription drug.Emerging Risks: Exploding Hog Farms – Hog farmers take note: the Minnesota Daily covers reports of a mysterious foam that has caused Midwest swine barns to unexpectedly explode. The foam can build up to heights of four feet on manure pits. “The foam traps gases like methane and when a spark ignites it causes an explosion. About a half dozen barns in the Midwest have exploded since the foam was discovered in 2009. / In mid-September 2011, a barn in Iowa was added to the growing number of barns taken down by the foam. In the explosion, 1,500 pigs were lost, and one worker was injured.”Contractors in conflict zones – At Risk Management Monitor, Jared Wade discusses contractor deaths in Afghanistan as reported in a recent New York Times article. He notes that, “In 2011, for the first time, there were more civilian contractors working for U.S. companies that died in Afghanistan than there were U.S. soldiers.” He follows up with excerpts and links to a prior Risk Management story on working in the world’s most dangerous locationsEconomy & Insurance – Global financial woes will not derail the economy, according to Robert Hartwig, President and Economist at the Insurance Information Institute, who has been a reliable forecaster and source of information on both the overall economy and the impact on the insurance industry. He sees opportunities for insurers beyond waiting for rate increases. Read more in Chad Hemenway’s story at Propertycasualty360: Hartwig: U.S. Insurers Should Look at ‘New Trajectory of Growth’Aging & Construction Work – The Center for Construction Research and Training analyzed 100,000 workers comp construction industry claims for the
state of Colorado to understand the relationship between the claimant
age and costs by the causes and natures of injuries and illnesses. Consistent with other aging studies, the report says “Older construction workers filed a small percentage of the total workers’ compensation claims; however, when they did file a claim the associated costs were greater.” Review the key findings: The Role of Age on the Cause, Type, Nature and Cost of Construction Injuries (PDF)News briefs

For 36 years Rodolfo Meza worked for Aerol Corporation in Rancho Diminguez CA as a metal worker making cast iron and aluminum molds. He was about 48 when he began working; he was about 84 when he was terminated while on medical leave for a knee operation. Rodolfo sued, claiming age discrimination, raising the question: how old is too old to work?
In the course of his trial and subsequent appeal, Rodolfo noted that his immediate supervisor commented frequently about his being “too old to work.” Despite operations for a hernia and a knee replacement (the court rulings do not indicate whether these were covered by workers comp), Rodolfo had every intention of continuing to work. When his normal job became a bit difficult for him to perform, he requested a transfer to the engineering department, where he often had performed work. His supervisor responded “no, Rudy I can’t [transfer you]. You are too old to move to engineering.”
When he was terminated in 2009, his 24 year old son (conceived when Rodolfo was 60!) noted that he became sad and depressed.Age Has Its Benefits
A jury awarded Rodolfo $100,000 for future economic loss: based upon his annual earnings, that’s a little over three additional years of employment, bringing Rodolfo to age 87. In addition, they awarded $300,000 for past non-economic damages (presumably, the ongoing agist comments of his supervisor). That’s a lot of money for an individual nearly 20 years past the conventional retirement age.
Aerol appealed and lost. The CA Court of Appeals found a pattern of discrimination, along with a legal technicality that prevented Aerol from contesting the award for the future earnings: Aerol failed to raise the issue in a timely manner during the initial the trial.Expensive Lessons in Human Resource Management
Is the court saying that employers must continue to employ workers into their 80s, with no recourse available to force retirement? Can workers work as long as they like?
Not really.
Aerol – through the actions of Rodolfo’s supervisor – made a number of critical mistakes in managing this situation. The supervisor made repeated comments about Rodolfo’s age; the supervisor should have been warned to cease this behavior and disciplined if he continued. Rodolfo had an exemplary record of employment; there was no (written) indication that his performance had deteriorated. When Rodolfo felt less capable of doing his regular job and requested a transfer, he was denied the opportunity based solely upon his age. When he requested time off for the knee surgery, it was granted; there was no indication that his job would be eliminated during his absence, but that’s exactly how Aerol proceeded.A Word to the Wise on Aging
Savvy employers would do well to learn from Aerol’s mistakes:
– Never assume that based solely upon age a worker is “too old”
– Focus on the essential job requirements: employees must be able to safely perform jobs as specified (some accommodation based upon age should be considered)
– Document any problems in performance
– Train supervisors in managing older workers (along with women, minorities, disabled workers and any other protected classes)
– Above all, keep lines of communication open.
Rodolfo gave 36 years to Aerol. He deserved consideration as he grew older, but he was not guaranteed a job. If and when any issues of his job performance arose, his supervisor should have sat down with him to discuss them openly. Ironically, there are no real winners in this situation: Aerol (or its insurer) took a big hit economically. They also lost a loyal employee who was still capable of making a positive contribution to the company. Rodolfo lost the job he loved and lived for. To be sure, he now has a nice nest egg for retirement, but that is not what he wanted most. He was one older worker who just wanted to keep on working.

It’s deja vu all over again at Managed Care Matters, where Joe Paduda hosts commentary on the rematch of the healthcare reform debate in this week’s Health Wonk Review: Repeal, replace, renew, revise, revisit – what the bloggers say. It’s a great issue with good contributions and diverse opinions on the matter. Check it out!The skinny on fat – As a follow-on to my colleague’s post on the not-so-hidden-cost of obesity earlier in the week, we offer this visualization – the obesity map from the CDC, which shows the dramatic rise in obesity rates from 1985 through 2009. You can also see a state-by-state breakdown of obesity rates.Underwriting front and center – Dan Reynolds of Risk & Insurance does a great job of outlining just how much of an underwriter’s nightmare workers comp has become and looking at how much worse it could get – and why. Chad Hemenway of PropertyCasualty360 (formerly known as National Underwriter) reports on a recent presentation by Insurance Information Institute’s Bob Hartwig who says that the industry is at a tipping point, and underwriting will be the driving force in profit or loss for 2011.Horseplay ruling At Business Insurance, Roberto Ceniceros reports on a recent Virginia high court ruling which allocated benefits to a worker injured during horseplay. The injured employee was a victim, not the perpetrator, of the horseplay. “The state high court also relied on a theory of recovery, which has found that joking actions of co-workers are a risk of employment because humans are playful and from time to time engage in pranks, which can be dangerous.”Aging & Workers Comp – Working Safer or Just Working Longer? – new study by California’s Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation. The report contains a lot of interesting information and notes that “Interestingly, despite the large increases in the fraction of workers 55+, the impact of the aging workforce on expected workers’ compensation costs is modest. Frequency and duration effects partially offset each other and older workers still represent a minority of all workers. The aging workforce will increase workers’ compensation costs only about 2% as of 2030 above the cost if the distribution of workers by age had remained the same as 2000.”And about those seniors… – Jon Gelman posts about a push to put a cap on workers comp for federal workers based on age. According to Senator Susan Collins, “At the U.S. Postal Service, for example, 1,000 employees currently receiving federal workers’ compensation benefits are 80 years or older. Incredibly, 132 of these individuals are 90 and older and there are three who are 98.” Gelman’s post includes links to states and counties who are also looking at this issue.OSHA – OSHA’s Top 10 Safety Violations for 2010 – In 2010 OSHA issued over 94,000 safety-related citations for violations. OSHA stated that nearly half of the total violations were accounted for by the top 10 safety violations.

The GAO has issued an interesting report on the implications for increasing the retirement age. As the American workforce ages (the Insider is all over that one), and as the pressures on retirement funding increase, the various payers are all looking for ways to shift the costs to someone else. Who are the payers? Social Security, SSDI, the states, private insurers and self-insured employers. As the feds tinker with the retirement age, they are very much in the solve one problem, create another mode.
At first glance, it seems pretty simple: to reduce pressure on the social security retirement system, make people work longer. But it’s one thing for a white-collar bureaucrat (or consultant!) to work into his or her late 60s, it’s something else altogether for modestly educated workers with physically demanding jobs. As the feds slam the door on social security, the door on SSDI flies open. The GAO notes that about 2/3 of those who work report having a job that is physically demanding. In addition, disability rates increase with age, with the result that workers who postpone retirement face the increasing likelihood of becoming disabled. Thus the ever-aging workforce, unable to perform the physically demanding work, may be forced to apply for disability retirement – which, after all, pays better than ordinary social security.The State of the States
This federal-level debate is taking place parallel to what is happening at the state level, where workers comp systems designed to accommodate retirement at 65 or sooner are confronted with older and older workers. How should workers comp estimate the working life of an older worker? To the degree that state systems curtail benefits of these aging workers, the pressure will build on the federal social security and SSDI systems.
One thing is certain: every payer sits in an isolated silo, doing their best to make someone else cut the checks. Every successful shift in cost creates pressure somewhere else. And at the center of this developing storm sit the aging workers themselves: not necessarily wanting to work, not necessarily wanting to qualify for disability, but suffering the slings and arrows of time, with nothing much saved for retirement and an increasingly ominous future close at hand.

In Greek mythology, Daedalus built the Labyrinth for King Minos of Knossos to contain the awful half bull/half man Minotaur. Theseus eventually killed the Minotaur, but only found his way out of the Labyrinth because Ariadne had given him a magic thread to mark his way in and out of the maze. I’m beginning to think that American health care makes the Labyrinth look like an easy walk across Boston Common on a sunny day. And, so far at least, no one seems to have found the magic thread.
Workers’ compensation medical care is now getting whipsawed by two powerful and unstoppable forces: the Medicare Secondary Payer Statute (MSP) and the inexorable aging of the baby boomer generation.
We’ve written about these two looming catastrophes in the past. Seventy-eight million baby boomers are hard to ignore, and the MSP issue is starting to remind me of the 1958 horror movie, The Blob , wherein a gelatinous creature grew gargantuan by eating everything in its path. Two things have already occurred in the new year that bode well for continued growth of the MSP Blob.The insurance industry goes a-begging
Last week the American Insurance Association, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the Self-Insurance Institute of America wrote to the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius asking her to delay the 1 April 2010 implementation of MSP mandatory reporting requirements. You can find the reporting requirements here.
The new regs lay a heavy burden on the comp insurance industry, referred to in the regs as Responsible Reporting Entities (RREs). (Such unfortunate acronyms bring me back, alas, to my days in the military.) RREs must report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) any workers’ compensation claims that involve ongoing medical payments, with the exception of most medical only claims. In their letter, the organizations list five reasons they believe an implementation delay is necessary. The first items are all about process: security protection, a lack of guidance from the CMS and an insufficient period for testing the proposed reporting procedures. The fifth reason, which is really the first reason, is the economic big stick which, when deadlines are missed, will slap fines of up to $1,000 per day per claim upside the heads of RREs. Ouch!
There’s a lot more to it, and we’ll be writing more about it in the coming months, but for now it’s enough to know that the insurance industry is on its collective knees asking for a delay in the implementation of reporting requirements that have already been delayed and extended once.Inedible Maryland Crabcake?
The second thing affecting MSP that happened in the new year may or may not turn out to be a big deal. On 4 January 2010, the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission issued emergency regulations that require CMS approval for all workers’ compensation settlements, not just the ones that meet the review thresholds in the CMS User Guide, version 2.0. The commission is requiring CMS review of virtually every claim up for settlement.
The new procedures require that every settlement pass through CMS before the Commission will approve it. Here is an excerpt from Maryland’s emergency regulations:

A settlement that falls within the Medicare thresholds must be approved by CMS before it will be approved by the Commission.

A settlement the falls outside the Medicare thresholds may be approved by the Commission provided that the settlement agreement:

1. Contains a statement confirming that the interests of Medicare have been considered in reaching the settlement; and

3. The apportionment of the amount of the settlement associated with future medical expenses shall be supported by medical evidence such as a medical opinion or evaluation.

While it remains to be seen if the Commission’s action will significantly delay settlements or increase costs in Maryland, it’s reasonable to assume that it will. As any workers’ compensation professional knows, the longer a claim stays open, the more it costs. As a result, the Maryland approach to Medicare set asides is not a good candidate for replication in other states.A Magic Thread
As I write this, I’m about to leave for San Antonio for the 2010 Health and Productivity Forum, sponsored by the Integrated Benefits Institute and the National Business Coalition on Health. I’ll be participating in a panel discussion organized and led by Broadspire’s Gary Anderberg, one of the smartest people I know. Our panel will be addressing workers’ compensation medical care and costs and the effect health care reform may have on both. I sure hope that Gary has brought a few spools of Ariadne’s thread. We’re going to need some magic to guide us through this formidable labyrinth.

NCCI has issued its latest report (PDF) on the status of older workers in the comp system, with a particular focus on workers 65 and up. If nothing else, the study reinforces the notion that older workers are safety conscious and a relative bargain. For employers worried about workers comp costs, older workers are not a significant problem.
In 1988 eleven percent of workers 65+ participated in the workforce; now 17 percent of these older workers are still working. That percentage will likely increase as the long-term effects of the financial collapse continue to resonate through the damaged economy. Some people continue working because they want to; many more continue because they have no choice.Injury Prone?
The frequency rate for older workers varies by occupation: in construction, older workers appear to be safer than younger workers – they are injured at a 4 percent rate, compared to 12 percent for their younger colleagues. The results are flipped in retail/sales: older workers are injured at a 23 percent rate, compared to 15 percent for all others.
As you might expect, the leading cause of injuries for 65+ workers are slips, falls and trips – 47 percent of all injuries for this cohort. (Younger workers suffer these injuries at a 24 percent rate). For strains and sprains – the overall leading cost-driver for workers comp – the results are reversed: the frequency for older workers is 23 percent, compared to a whopping 38 percent for all others.
It does take longer for older workers to recover from injuries: they have a median days-away-from-work rate of 16, compared to 12 days for workers in the 55 to 64 group and 10 days for workers 45-54. Despite this higher rate, overall indemnity costs are lower. Why? Because older workers make substantially less on average than younger ones. Wages peak in the mid-50s and then fall off dramatically after age 65, down to the same level as the entry level 20 to 24 group. So much for the notion of paying for experience!
The only red flags in the study involve the retail trade and service/hospitality industries, where older workers are showing higher-than-average costs for comp. These jobs probably offer ample opportunity for slips, trips and falls, the number one cause of injuries for these workers, .
It will be fascinating to watch NCCI’s study evolve over the next decade. The percentage of workforce participation for the 65+ group is going to increase steadily. With this growth, the risks will be enhanced. There is likely to be an upward trend in both frequency and severity, but perhaps not as much as feared. Certainly, the NCCI study reinforces the argument that older workers are safe, reliable and motivated. There is no reason to discriminate against them. If anything, you could make a good case for preferring an older worker to a younger one. Fodder for further thought, indeed.
NOTE: Special thanks to reader Soon Yong Choi for spotting an error in an earlier version of this post (see comments). Given my checkered track record with numbers, I can only hope that Choi and similarly adept readers continue to cast a critical eye on any of my postings where statistics are involved.